My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2009-09-01_PERMIT FILE - M2009018 (9)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2009018
>
2009-09-01_PERMIT FILE - M2009018 (9)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:55:10 PM
Creation date
9/4/2009 7:07:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2009018
IBM Index Class Name
PERMIT FILE
Doc Date
9/1/2009
Doc Name
Request for Continuance
From
Varra Companies, Inc.
To
DRMS
Email Name
MAC
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
a. If the Applicant chooses, as is the case thus far, to predicate the <br />stability analysis and the protection of nearby property and structures <br />on a 1:25H:1 V pit wall, then the Applicant must provide a <br />confirmatory statement of recognition that the DRMS will find any <br />instance of mining to a steeper slope to be a serious violation of a <br />critical permit condition. <br />It should be kept in mind that operations are in a regulated state, and <br />the purposes of establishing limits are not to suggest the limits are <br />standard operating procedure. The full potential of extraction is shown <br />in the CAD based map titled Exhibit D - Mine Plan. <br />The CAD is actually a three dimensional model from which volumes <br />of soil and product were determined if the location is extracted to the <br />full limits shown. Naturally, in a regulated condition, the expression <br />of stated limits allows greater flexibility of activities as long as they <br />stay within those stated limits, and therefore, most likely will fall <br />below those limits in the majority of circumstances. <br />Concurrency of reclaimed slopes is a stated method of minimizing the <br />occurrence of cut slopes and walls. This is fully laid out under Exhibit <br />D - Extraction Plan, text; as follows: <br />An advancing 1600± foot extraction front will be <br />comprised of side slopes nearly 400 linear feet at <br />1.25H:1V along each side of an 800 foot advancing <br />wall. Concurrent reclamation will trail this front by <br />approximately 400 foot increments. <br />The Applicant intends the side slopes to be a `will not exceed limit' <br />respective of any resulting cuts. Advancing side walls will commonly <br />fall between 1.25H:1 V and 1:5H:1 V or less, but anomalies may occur <br />and the intent was to assure the Office of Mined Land Reclamation <br />(the `Office') that should anomalous walls occur to the stated limit, <br />they will be within a reasonable measure of safety where they occur. <br />The walls are moving by advancing extraction, and anomalies will no <br />doubt result, but the effort to limit the extent of the wall by following <br />behind with concurrent grading will serve to minimize the time the <br />dormant slopes trailing the advancing wall are left in a prone <br />condition. We believe stating the limit was a reasonable not to exceed <br />limit to the permit, in order to keep even more resilient slopes from <br />being deemed out of conformance. <br />b. If the Applicant chooses to continue with the condition that pit slopes <br />will be mined at no steeper than 1.25H:1 V, a description must be <br />Varna Companies, Inc. correspondence of 1 September 2009 to the Colorado Office of Mined Land 12 <br />Reclamation (Office) in reply to Office correspondence of 27 July 2009 - Heintzelman Project - <br />M2009-018.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.